Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[HenryBHough]

Church down the street - The First Church of If It Feels Good Do It - has a definition on a banner over the door.
​

Feels good - right
Hurts - wrong​

 

[pacer]

Possible. That certainly happens.
Do you think that rises to pandemic proportions, though?
Really?

Yes. I believe most heterosexual couples have done it. When does god take out his vengeance?

You think most heterosexual couples have had gay sex outside of marriage?
Really?

I meant to say most heterosexual couples have engaged in anal sex, which is homosexual behaviour.

 

[HenryBHough]

I meant to say most heterosexual couples have engaged in anal sex, which is homosexual behaviour.

That would depend upon the gender of the male's partner. "Going Greek" applies to either.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Yes. I believe most heterosexual couples have done it. When does god take out his vengeance?

You think most heterosexual couples have had gay sex outside of marriage?
Really?

I meant to say most heterosexual couples have engaged in anal sex, which is homosexual behaviour.

I would still disagree with the "most" characterization, but this makes a bit more sense.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Problems for Atheists

Morality is honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.

It's that simple, and as universal as that....for adults. It's driven by the need for good order which is a universal desire for all except tyrants and anarchists. The motivation for adhering to that moral code is enlightened self-interest--atheists, agnostics, materialists and believers alike.

There are grey areas for those less than adults. Take the right to liberty. Is it immoral to put a baby/young child in a playpen; or keeping him from riding his trike into the street? What about chores? When do we acquire the right to manage our own property? At 2?.....10?.....when? Does a child have the right to a gun to defend himself? And the biggie, is the right to life. To claim that it begins at conception is pure religious dogma--which isn't even biblical.

All these grey areas gradually become black and white at some point for each moral right. Where those points are, and how to deal with such gradations socially and legally is our problem.

 

[DriftingSand]

The red part of your post is exactly why there is no concensus on right and wrong, good and evil. There is no consistent experience to base it on.
The blue part is true, I think, but incomplete.
The fact that an absolute truth exists doesn't mean it can be ascertained. Two completely different issues. Truth IS. Your perception or belief in what that is has no confirmation, nor does mine, so the fact that we agree that truth exists gets us no closer to being able to agree on what truth IS.
So in the absence of this confirmation, we choose our truths, our goods and evils, our rights and wrongs.

I believe that truth CAN be ascertained if someone seeks it. It is absolutely true that the earth revolves around the sun. It is absolutely true that hair is mostly protein. It is absolutely true that a Corvette was designed, etc.

We really couldn't discuss "truth" unless it existed (and exists) so it must be a reality else there would be nothing to discuss. There are many, many truths that can be absolutely confirmed.

 

[DriftingSand]

Did you forget this part:
Originally Posted by DriftingSand

True. Which could be used by Him to punish the wicked. I really don't know.

See emboldened portion above^^^^^^^^^

See also the part about "him".

The gargantuan font does add melodrama, though.

It also adds a gargantuan amount of clarity to the statement and the intent of the statement. Quit bickering over insignificant non-issues.

 

[DriftingSand]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Problems for Atheists

Morality is honoring the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.

It's that simple, and as universal as that....for adults. It's driven by the need for good order which is a universal desire for all except tyrants and anarchists. The motivation for adhering to that moral code is enlightened self-interest--atheists, agnostics, materialists and believers alike.

There are grey areas for those less than adults. Take the right to liberty. Is it immoral to put a baby/young child in a playpen; or keeping him from riding his trike into the street? What about chores? When do we acquire the right to manage our own property? At 2?.....10?.....when? Does a child have the right to a gun to defend himself? And the biggie, is the right to life. To claim that it begins at conception is pure religious dogma--which isn't even biblical.

All these grey areas gradually become black and white at some point for each moral right. Where those points are, and how to deal with such gradations socially and legally is our problem.

Thanks for your strong OPINION. I see you've included exceptions to your own rule(s).

As for your statement concerning when life begins I believe that science (minus any religious dogma) would strongly differ with you. Clearly a zygote isn't dead else it would not continue to produce cells and grow. Clearly it's taking in necessary nutrition vital to its continued growth. So, science has no choice but to consider a zygote alive.

It's a miraculous process:

 

[thebrucebeat]

The red part of your post is exactly why there is no concensus on right and wrong, good and evil. There is no consistent experience to base it on.
The blue part is true, I think, but incomplete.
The fact that an absolute truth exists doesn't mean it can be ascertained. Two completely different issues. Truth IS. Your perception or belief in what that is has no confirmation, nor does mine, so the fact that we agree that truth exists gets us no closer to being able to agree on what truth IS.
So in the absence of this confirmation, we choose our truths, our goods and evils, our rights and wrongs.

I believe that truth CAN be ascertained if someone seeks it. It is absolutely true that the earth revolves around the sun. It is absolutely true that hair is mostly protein. It is absolutely true that a Corvette was designed, etc.

We really couldn't discuss "truth" unless it existed (and exists) so it must be a reality else there would be nothing to discuss. There are many, many truths that can be absolutely confirmed.

And others that can't, and those are what are being discussed here, not the molecular structure of my beard.

 

[amrchaos]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Problems for Atheists

The reasons why Atheists claim there are no moral absolutes is due to the several reasons and observations.

One of which is the idea that some moral concepts, like adultery, can conflict with other moral concepts, like rape, due to the situation at hand.

Another is due to the irrationality of man. While you may follow the Golden Rule and do not rape others, there maybe some one that relishes the idea of being raped and will Use the Golden Rule to justify raping other people.

Another is due to the conceptual basis of some moral laws--these laws appear to be self serving to the organization in its paranoid attempt to maintain social control.Not social order--social control!

And finally the observation that no man nor organization of men, despite what man has said, written or claimed, can be considered the sole authority of what is truly right or wrong. The problem most theist are having is that theists think atheists just declared not only the authors of religious text are not authorities--but they, your parents, your children, your boss your neighbor, loved ones.....me, are essentially fools.

Not true. What you should take away from the point is that atheists are saying that each person is deciding what is right or wrong due to their own reasons. For instance, you may have grown up being taught a certain religious belief, and there came apoint in your life you sought some validity of it.It is at this point you began to make the choice of your moral code. Of what is right or wrong. You choose your religion. You believe you made the right choice.. But you choose, and continue to practice it for those reasons. Lose those reasons. you might lose your concept of right and wrong--or develop new reasons why!!

 

[editec]

RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.

Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.

Are you as stupid as your response suggests?

 

[DriftingSand]

The red part of your post is exactly why there is no concensus on right and wrong, good and evil. There is no consistent experience to base it on.
The blue part is true, I think, but incomplete.
The fact that an absolute truth exists doesn't mean it can be ascertained. Two completely different issues. Truth IS. Your perception or belief in what that is has no confirmation, nor does mine, so the fact that we agree that truth exists gets us no closer to being able to agree on what truth IS.
So in the absence of this confirmation, we choose our truths, our goods and evils, our rights and wrongs.

I believe that truth CAN be ascertained if someone seeks it. It is absolutely true that the earth revolves around the sun. It is absolutely true that hair is mostly protein. It is absolutely true that a Corvette was designed, etc.

We really couldn't discuss "truth" unless it existed (and exists) so it must be a reality else there would be nothing to discuss. There are many, many truths that can be absolutely confirmed.

And others that can't, and those are what are being discussed here, not the molecular structure of my beard.

It's your opinion that some truths can't be ascertained but that doesn't mean that they can't be ascertained. New facts and truths are revealed every day.

 

[DriftingSand]

RIGHT AND WRONG are concepts..concepts that have no meaning except in some CONTEXT.

Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.

Are you as stupid as your response suggests?

I can always tell when I'm dealing with a liberal/atheist. Their "arguments" consist of insults or namecalling. Run along now and have a nice day.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Then it wouldn't be wrong for someone to steal your car -- you know ... that meaningless concept stuff and all.

Are you as stupid as your response suggests?

I can always tell when I'm dealing with a liberal/atheist. Their "arguments" consist of insults or namecalling. Run along now and have a nice day.

Please see Newby, Boss, Cecilie and many others from the theist camp who are among the most vulgar people on these boards and update your post.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I believe that truth CAN be ascertained if someone seeks it. It is absolutely true that the earth revolves around the sun. It is absolutely true that hair is mostly protein. It is absolutely true that a Corvette was designed, etc.

We really couldn't discuss "truth" unless it existed (and exists) so it must be a reality else there would be nothing to discuss. There are many, many truths that can be absolutely confirmed.

And others that can't, and those are what are being discussed here, not the molecular structure of my beard.

It's your opinion that some truths can't be ascertained but that doesn't mean that they can't be ascertained. New facts and truths are revealed every day.

Ultimate truth is hidden by a veil that, yes, in my opinion will never be revealed.

 

[DriftingSand]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?

3) The Problem of Morality

Most atheists claim to have a moral code, but their code lies on a shaky foundation because they suppose that there are no moral absolutes. If there is no God and no moral absolutes, then why is it necessary or important to live a morally upright life? Who has the right to even define what a morally upright life consists of? And why would one person's opinion of what is morally right be any better than someone else's opinion?

Apart from moral absolutes no one can declare something to be right or wrong. He can only share his own personal opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion. If he judges something to be wrong, that judgment is subjective and is based on no objective standard. It is only what he thinks is wrong, and others can easily disagree because they have their own subjective opinions.

Problems for Atheists

The reasons why Atheists claim there are no moral absolutes is due to the several reasons and observations.

One of which is the idea that some moral concepts, like adultery, can conflict with other moral concepts, like rape, due to the situation at hand.

Another is due to the irrationality of man. While you may follow the Golden Rule and do not rape others, there maybe some one that relishes the idea of being raped and will Use the Golden Rule to justify raping other people.

Another is due to the conceptual basis of some moral laws--these laws appear to be self serving to the organization in its paranoid attempt to maintain social control.Not social order--social control!

And finally the observation that no man nor organization of men, despite what man has said, written or claimed, can be considered the sole authority of what is truly right or wrong. The problem most theist are having is that theists think atheists just declared not only the authors of religious text are not authorities--but they, your parents, your children, your boss your neighbor, loved ones.....me, are essentially fools.

Not true. What you should take away from the point is that atheists are saying that each person is deciding what is right or wrong due to their own reasons. For instance, you may have grown up being taught a certain religious belief, and there came apoint in your life you sought some validity of it.It is at this point you began to make the choice of your moral code. Of what is right or wrong. You choose your religion. You believe you made the right choice.. But you choose, and continue to practice it for those reasons. Lose those reasons. you might lose your concept of right and wrong--or develop new reasons why!!

You've just defined (in your own words) situational ethics where each person is allowed to define what it right or wrong based on their personal whims. NAMBLA believes that it's "okay" or right for adult men to have sexual contact with young boys. I say that it's wrong now and will always be wrong. But if NAMBLA were to gain enough support from a society then that society could concede with NAMBLA's worldview and incorporate their outlook into the society's moral code or code of ethics. But just because they allow something like that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong no matter what.

So the fickle, flip-floppy mind of man doesn't make a good measuring tool for what is right or wrong.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong? Is there some ethical code that defines what right and wrong is? If there is no Author of moral or ethical concepts then who gets to decide where the line is drawn?



Problems for Atheists

The reasons why Atheists claim there are no moral absolutes is due to the several reasons and observations.

One of which is the idea that some moral concepts, like adultery, can conflict with other moral concepts, like rape, due to the situation at hand.

Another is due to the irrationality of man. While you may follow the Golden Rule and do not rape others, there maybe some one that relishes the idea of being raped and will Use the Golden Rule to justify raping other people.

Another is due to the conceptual basis of some moral laws--these laws appear to be self serving to the organization in its paranoid attempt to maintain social control.Not social order--social control!

And finally the observation that no man nor organization of men, despite what man has said, written or claimed, can be considered the sole authority of what is truly right or wrong. The problem most theist are having is that theists think atheists just declared not only the authors of religious text are not authorities--but they, your parents, your children, your boss your neighbor, loved ones.....me, are essentially fools.

Not true. What you should take away from the point is that atheists are saying that each person is deciding what is right or wrong due to their own reasons. For instance, you may have grown up being taught a certain religious belief, and there came apoint in your life you sought some validity of it.It is at this point you began to make the choice of your moral code. Of what is right or wrong. You choose your religion. You believe you made the right choice.. But you choose, and continue to practice it for those reasons. Lose those reasons. you might lose your concept of right and wrong--or develop new reasons why!!

You've just defined (in your own words) situational ethics where each person is allowed to define what it right or wrong based on their personal whims. NAMBLA believes that it's "okay" or right for adult men to have sexual contact with young boys. I say that it's wrong now and will always be wrong. But if NAMBLA were to gain enough support from a society then that society could concede with NAMBLA's worldview and incorporate their outlook into the society's moral code or code of ethics. But just because they allow something like that doesn't make it right. It's still wrong no matter what.

So the fickle, flip-floppy mind of man doesn't make a good measuring tool for what is right or wrong.

So his flip-floppy understanding of "god" is equally untrustworthy.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

No, Bruce. His flip floppy opinion. Everyone has one but it matters not when it comes to God defining right and wrong.

The Word doesn't require or adapt to mans opinion on what is right and wrong. Just obedience to it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

No, Bruce. His flip floppy opinion. Everyone has one but it matters not when it comes to God defining right and wrong.

The Word doesn't require or adapt to mans opinion on what is right and wrong. Just obedience to it.

You would have a case if the world had one religion.
But it doesn't.

 

[DriftingSand]

Are you as stupid as your response suggests?

I can always tell when I'm dealing with a liberal/atheist. Their "arguments" consist of insults or namecalling. Run along now and have a nice day.

Please see Newby, Boss, Cecilie and many others from the theist camp who are among the most vulgar people on these boards and update your post.

Don't know Boss or Cecilie and have never seen Newby be vulgar. So I can only post based on my personal experience.